of demo would not know where to vote.118

In his version in favor of the plaintiffs and against Secretary Blackwell, U.S. District

Judge James Carr held that the blame lay squarely on Secretary Blackwell.119 The court was

forced to issue two rulings ordering Secretary Blackwell to issue HAVA-compliant directives.

Secretary Blackwell abided by neither judgment and instead proceeded with directives that

would disenfranchise Ohio voters.

With respect to the speed of the case, the court noted that its urgency was the result of

Secretary Blackwell failing to issue provisional voting guidelines for almost two years after the

enactment of HAVA:

The exigencies requiring the relief being ordered herein are due to the failure of

the defendant to fulfill his duty not only to this Court, as its injunction directed

him to do, but more importantly, to his failure to do his duty as Secretary of State

to ensure that the election laws are upheld and enforced. . . . The primary cause of

the exigency is the defendant's failure to have issued Directive 2004-33 relating to

provisional voting for nearly twenty-three months after HAVA's enactment. . . .

Blackwell has never explained why he waited so long to do anything to bring

Ohio's provisional election procedures into line with federal law.120

The court then turned its attention to the substance of Secretary Blackwell's original and

amended directives. In these directives, "Blackwell described not a single provision of federal

law generally, much less HAVA in particular. . . . By failing to discuss HAVA, on the one hand,

and describing only outmoded, no longer applicable procedures on the other, Blackwell . . . left

Ohio's election officials more confused than they would have been if the directive had not

issued."121 In addition, because the amended directive did not clearly state that persons who

might not be eligible to vote must be informed of their right to vote provisionally, the court held

that "Blackwell's proposed directive would disenfranchise all such individuals."122 The court

believed that, by seeming to deprive voters and county election officials of valuable information

regarding HAVA and provisional ballots, "Blackwell apparently seeks to accomplish the same

James Dao & Kate Zernike, Judge Rules for Democrats in Dispute over Ohio Voting,

N.Y. TI M E S, Oct. 15, 2004, at A22.

See Playing with the Election Rules, N.Y. TI M E S, Sept. 20, 2004, at A28 (editorial).

Sandusky County Democratic Party, 340 F. Supp.2d.

Id. at 816.

Id. at 817.

Id. at 820.

32